Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Goldy Contractors And Developers ... vs Icici Bank on 16 January, 2018
W.P. No.4548/2017 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
W.P. No.4548/2017
M/s Goldy Contractors and Developers Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd & Another
Indore, dated 16.01.2018
Shri A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel with Shri
Vivek Phadke, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 & 2/Bank.
Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition for issuance of appropriate writ order or direction to respondent/Bank to return the title deeds in respect of the land bearing Survey No.303/1 admeasuring 2 acres and Survey No.308/1/2 admeasuring 1.50 acres besides other land as well as possession of the property, which are subject matter of the dispute.
The facts of the case reveal that one Parasmal Jain has obtained the loan from ICICI Bank by mortgaging his property i.e. Ramdev Ginning Factory with the bank and could not repay the loan. The account was declared as NPA on 31.03.2008 and the bank took possession of the property as per the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
The negotiations were made for settling the account, however, a writ petition was also preferred by the borrower and the same was dismissed on ground of alternative remedy on 12.07.2010. Thereafter, the borrower has filed an application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the same was registered as S.A. No.183/2010, was dismissed by the Debt Recovery W.P. No.4548/2017 2 Tribunal on 11.04.2012. While the second appeal was pending before the D.R.T., the bank entered into a private treaty with one Ravi Joshi to sell the property at the sum of Rs.1,75,00,000/- and the borrower, Parasmal Jain has filed objection, which was rejected by the Court and finally the borrower entered into an agreement with the petitioner, who has agreed to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.2,55,00,000/-.
An application was also preferred Before the D.R.A.T. on 01.09.2012 for grant of permission of sell of the property and permission was granted and the property was sold. The entire dues of the bank has been cleared.
The present petition has been filed before this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ order directing the bank to hand over the original documents as well as possession of the property in question.
The bank has filed a detailed reply and the bank in its reply has categorically stated that the bank is ready to deliver the original documents and possession of the land to the present petitioner, however, it is respondent No.3, who is objecting in the matter.
Respondent No.3 has argued before this Court that the total amount as per the sale deed has not been paid, and therefore, a civil suit has been filed for declaration of the sale deed as null and void and the same is pending before the Additional District Judge, Sendhwa, District-Barwani. The civil suit was filed in the year 2017.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Federal Bank Ltd Vs. Sagar Thomas & Others (2003) 10 SCC 733 W.P. No.4548/2017 3 and his contention is that a writ petition is not at all maintainable .
In the aforesaid case, the issue was maintainability of writ petition, in which, a company was a party which was not a Government Company and it was held that the writ petition is not maintainable. In the present case, the petitioner has filed the present petition for return of sale deed and ICICI Bank is party. In the present case, there are orders of D.R.T. and on account of intervention by the D.R.T. for grant permission to purchase the property, the petitioner has purchased the property. The bank in question has categorically stated in the reply that they are ready to deliver title deed as well as possession of the property meaning thereby, the bank has not objected in the matter of return of title deed as well as possession of property in question.
This Court is of the opinion that the judgment delivered in the case Federal Bank (supra) is of no help to respondent No.1. The counsel for respondent has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Kaliaperumal Vs. Rajgopal & Another (2009) 4 SCC 193 and his contention is that the title doesn't stood transfer, as complete consideration has not been paid.
It has been informed by Shri Aniket Nayak that the civil suit was filed in 08.05.2017. Nothing prevented the respondent No.3 to file the present application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and nothing prevented respondent No.3 to implead the bank as also one of the defendant. There is no interim relief granted in the matter by the trial Court.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the prayer of the petitioner appears to be a genuine prayer. He is the one W.P. No.4548/2017 4 person, who cleared the all outstanding dues of respondent No.3 and on account of some alleged partial non-payment, the title deeds has not been returned by the bank to the petitioner, as an objection has been raised by respondent No.3. The objection of respondent can very well be adjudicated in the civil suit, which is pending between the parties.
Resultantly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. The respondent/Bank is directed to hand over the title deeds as well as possession of the property to the petitioner, which is with the bank, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.C. Sharma) Judge Ravi Digitally signed by Ravi Prakash DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Ravi Prakash ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=8c41d94e3639781a0083754cf33213a20de4d0 ca6c70fb2b3437951134024cc4, cn=Ravi Prakash Date: 2018.01.19 10:23:34 +05'30'